On February 5, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order seeking to prohibit transgender women and girls from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, as well as their use of women’s locker rooms. Although the name of the executive order and the language used throughout suggest that the order is about “men,” it is clear from the context that the order refers to transgender girls and women. The order addresses the participation of transgender girls and women in both educational institutions and professional athletic associations. This brief examines the impact of this ban on transgender people.
Scope and Reach of the Executive Order
Transgender sports bans typically mandate that transgender girls and women cannot participate on teams that align with their gender identity. However, these policies do not prevent participation in school sports based on sex assigned at birth. The president’s executive order follows this pattern, only addressing the participation of transgender girls and women. The order does not address participation in sports by transgender boys and men.
The order addresses two primary contexts: school athletics at the K-12 and collegiate level and professional athletic associations.
- School Sports. The president’s executive order states, “Many educational institutions … have allowed men to compete in women’s sports.” The order then directs the Secretary of Education to “take all appropriate action” to “protect all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms” by “clearly specifying and clarifying that women’s sports are reserved for women.” The context makes clear that the President intends to limit these opportunities and spaces to cisgender girls and women. The actions directed by the order include amending regulatory interpretations of Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments, which protects against sex discrimination in educational programs and activities receiving federal funding, enforcement actions against such institutions under this new interpretation, and termination of grants to programs deemed non-compliant. Funding cutoff under statutes like Title IX has rarely been seen through to completion by any prior administration—but there is reason to believe that the second Trump administration will pursue this line of action. Under the previous Trump administration, the Secretary of Education threatened to cut off funding for a school because it permitted transgender women to participate in women’s sports.
-
Professional Athletic Participation. President Trump’s order puts pressure on professional sports associations to adopt policies that exclude transgender girls and women from girls’ and women’s sports. For example, the order directs executive branch leaders, including the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Secretary of State, to encourage athletic associations to adopt a policy of excluding transgender girls and women from girls and women’s sports. This includes convening representatives from these organizations, state Attorneys General, and “female athletes harmed by these policies.” The order directs the Secretary of State to attempt to change International Olympic Committee rules on transgender participation and also directs immigration officials to refuse admission to transgender women from other countries for the purposes of sports participation. Since the 2028 Olympic Summer Games are scheduled to take place in Los Angeles, California, these changes, if adopted, could directly impact potential competitors.
Estimates of Transgender Students and Professional Athletes
A substantial number of transgender girls and women could be affected by the implementation of the executive order. However, limitations of current data make it difficult to estimate the number of transgender students and professional athletes who will be directly affected by this order, including specifically how many transgender girls and women participate in school or professional sports. Below, we outline some relevant data points to help understand the population impacted by the executive order:
- K-12 and College. A federal ban on sports participation and locker-room use at educational institutions will directly impact all transgender girls and women who participate in school sports and has the potential to affect all transgender girls and women in kindergarten through higher education. The reach of such a ban could be particularly broad at the K-12 (primary or secondary school) level, where participation in some athletic activities, such as gym class, is typically mandatory.
- National Estimates of Transgender Children and Youth. The Williams Institute estimates that there are 1.6 million transgender people ages 13 and older in the United States, including 300,100 transgender youth ages 13-17, most of whom are likely enrolled in schools and could be impacted by aspects of a ban on school sports participation or locker room use. We also estimate that there are 398,900 transgender young adults ages 18-24 in the U.S., many of whom are enrolled in colleges and universities. A ban could also reach students younger than 13 or older than 24.
- National Estimates of Transgender Children and Youth who Participate in Sports. Using existing sources of data, we can estimate the following:
- At the high school level, one study using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (“YRBSS”) found that 40.7% of transgender youth grades 9-12 played on at least one sports team. Applying that estimate to the population of transgender youth aged 13-17 suggests that as many as 122,000 transgender youth could be participating in high school-level team athletics.
- Although we don’t have reliable information about the number of transgender people under age 13, data from the 2020 National Health Interview Survey (“NHIS”) showed that approximately 52.5% of all youth under age 12 participated in a sport in the previous 12 months.
- While better data are needed to understand the number of transgender student-athletes participating in the complex network of collegiate sports opportunities, anecdotal estimates remain very low. It is unlikely that transgender athletes make up more than 1.3% of the overall college athlete population.
- Professional Associations. It is hard to estimate the impact of the President’s executive order on professional organizations, as their compliance is not mandated by the order—which means that responses from professional organizations could vary widely (including refusing to adopt exclusions). Furthermore, the number of transgender women competing in large-scale events like the Olympics is estimated to be very small. However, the National College Athletic Association, which governs many collegiate athletic competitions, has announced that it will ban transgender women from its competitions.
Notably, bans on sports girls and women’s participation could also impact intersex students and professional athletes.
Current Policy Landscape
To understand the full impact of the president’s executive order, particularly on transgender students, it is important to consider the current landscape of federal and state laws and policies related to transgender sports participation. The order, if implemented, would most directly affect transgender girls and women living in states where there is not already an existing state-level restriction on participation in school sports.
- Federal Landscape. Beyond President Trump’s executive order, rulemaking under Title IX and actions already underway by Congress might affect the impact of the order.
- Federal Rulemaking. Oversight of many educational programs and activities receiving federal funding, including enforcement of Title IX, is currently vested in the U.S. Department of Education. Under President Biden, the Department of Education enacted a Final Rule that codified some protections for transgender students under Title IX. However, the administration’s regulations did not directly address sports participation. The Biden administration’s Final Rule was blocked in its entirety by a court in January of 2025, which the Trump administration references in its executive order.
- Federal Legislation. Although Congress has not yet enacted a federal ban, such a bill would provide substantial support for the policies laid out in the executive order. Aligned with the president’s vision, the U.S. House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would limit participation in women’s school sports under Title IX. A similar bill is pending in the Senate.
- State Landscape. More than half of U.S. states already have a ban on sports participation by transgender youth consistent with their gender identity. However, the majority of transgender youth aged 13-17 live in states without such a ban.
- State with Explicit Bans. Currently, 27 states have a law or regulation that prevents transgender girls and women from participating in sports based on their gender identity. Some of these states also extend a ban to transgender boys and men. An estimated 117,400 transgender youth ages 13-17—a little over one-third of all U.S. transgender youth in this age group—now live in one of the 27 states where access to sports participation is restricted under state law.
- Jurisdictions with No Explicit Ban. Twenty-three states and D.C. do not currently have explicit bans on sports participation. This includes states with explicit protections, as described below, and states without clear policies. Overall, approximately 182,400 transgender youth aged 13-17 live in jurisdictions where they are not currently subject to an explicit ban on transgender sports participation.
- State Protections. Many jurisdictions without bans explicitly permit students to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity, including the state of California, which guarantees the right to participate in sports by gender identity under statute. Additionally, many states provide express protections against discrimination in education on the basis of gender identity, and others protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity in educational institutions as a form of public accommodation. Furthermore, New York State recently enacted a constitutional amendment prohibiting gender identity discrimination, which some have argued will protect transgender athletes from exclusion from women’s sports. A federal ban on sports participation could directly conflict with state-level protections in all these states. However, it is also important to note that some of the existing protections are in the form of policies or guidance that could be rescinded or rewritten if a federal sports ban were upheld.
Potential Constraints on the Implementation of the Executive Order
Although President Trump may move swiftly to attempt to enforce the executive order, particularly as it applies to educational institutions receiving federal funding, several factors may complicate or hinder his policy goals. These include the limitations of executive orders generally and pending court challenges to state-level sports bans.
- Limitations of Executive Orders. A key function of executive orders is political messaging. Executive orders have practical impacts, but there are limits to what a president can do through this medium. Most importantly, an executive order must be supported by authority the president derives from the Constitution or through an express delegation from Congress by statute. Additionally, implementation is often not immediate. This is because an executive order often takes the form of a directive to federal agencies or offices under the executive branch, each of which would have to conduct internal assessments and consider actions such as rulemaking. However, executive orders may also have a more immediate impact in instances where formal rulemaking is not required or by taking actions that may encounter fewer procedural constraints. This executive order builds on an earlier executive order redefining the meaning of the word “sex,” which has already been relied upon by the Department of Justice to investigate a school district for having transgender-inclusive bathrooms. Therefore, we will likely see swift movement to enforce aspects of this executive order as well. However, it is also likely the administration will face litigation and potential injunction.
- Court Challenges. Transgender student-athletes and their families have brought court cases challenging bans in numerous states, raising claims under Title IX, the U.S. Constitution, and state constitutions. Two of these cases have been submitted to the Supreme Court, which could decide once and for all whether the bans violate federal nondiscrimination protections.
- Title IX. Even if the Trump administration were to change federal agency regulations interpreting Title IX to exclude transgender youth, court decisions could still ensure protection for student-athletes under the statute. In fact, one student-athlete has prevailed at the circuit-court level, winning preliminary judgment under the Title IX statute. However, federal Circuit Courts remain split on how the Title IX statute would apply to transgender youth in schools, with some Circuits ruling against transgender youth in the context of bathrooms. At the same time, lawsuits have also been brought by cisgender students seeking to exclude transgender athletes from participation in women’s sports under Title IX. Additionally, if Congress were to pass the planned legislation excluding transgender girls and women from Title IX’s sports protections, this could supersede both regulations and court precedent.
- Equal Protection. At least one transgender plaintiff has successfully challenged sports bans under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution at the Circuit Court level. If the Supreme Court were to find that a federal sports ban violates the Constitution, that could prevent states and the federal government from enforcing sports bans. The Court is expected to issue a decision in 2025 in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case challenging transgender healthcare discrimination case under the Equal Protection Clause, which could shed light on how the Court will review a sports ban in the future.
- State Constitutions. States can offer different or even more expansive protections than the U.S. Constitution. In a handful of states, challenges to sports bans have been brought with modest success.
- Empirical Basis for Bans. A review of the ban under U.S. and state constitutional doctrines will require an assessment of the empirical basis for the ban. For example, the executive order reiterates a concern for “fair” competition as a fundamental justification for the exclusion of transgender girls and women. Although data are limited, current evidence does not suggest there is a categorical athletic advantage for transgender female athletes when compared with cisgender female athletes.
- Title IX. Even if the Trump administration were to change federal agency regulations interpreting Title IX to exclude transgender youth, court decisions could still ensure protection for student-athletes under the statute. In fact, one student-athlete has prevailed at the circuit-court level, winning preliminary judgment under the Title IX statute. However, federal Circuit Courts remain split on how the Title IX statute would apply to transgender youth in schools, with some Circuits ruling against transgender youth in the context of bathrooms. At the same time, lawsuits have also been brought by cisgender students seeking to exclude transgender athletes from participation in women’s sports under Title IX. Additionally, if Congress were to pass the planned legislation excluding transgender girls and women from Title IX’s sports protections, this could supersede both regulations and court precedent.
Impacts of Sports Bans of Well-Being
Bans on athletic participation for transgender girls and women could have negative impacts on the health and well-being of affected transgender students and athletes, particularly youth and young adults.
- Benefits of Sports Participation. Participation in sports is linked with numerous benefits, particularly for children and adolescents. It has been correlated with higher levels of self-esteem, lower levels of depression, and greater school belonging among LGBTQ youth. Additionally, one study found that transgender and nonbinary students who participated in sports reported higher grades compared to those who did not participate. Another study found that transgender students who participated in collegiate sports may be less likely to report psychological distress, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and suicidal behavior compared to transgender students who did not participate in sports. If transgender girls and women are not allowed to participate in sports based on their gender identity, they could be denied these and other benefits.
- Risks of Exclusion. Exclusion from sports could also result in discrimination or harassment for transgender students. A recent study using YRBSS data found that transgender high school students report disproportionate bullying, persistent hopelessness, and suicidal ideation compared to cisgender students. Evidence suggests that transgender students in higher education may also experience greater levels of harassment and discrimination, have a more negative perception of campus and classroom climates, and feel less accepted as part of the campus community compared to cisgender students. Any of these disparities could be made worse if transgender students are denied participation in school sports or forced to participate consistent with their sex assigned at birth under a federal ban.
Conclusion
President Trump’s executive order signals to educational institutions and professional athletic associations that the federal government will attempt to use its enforcement powers to exclude transgender girls and women from participating in sports and using women’s locker rooms across the United States. This will likely include issuing new rules excluding transgender girls and women under Title IX and enforcing those rules against educational institutions receiving federal funding. However, the ability of the President to implement the executive order is limited by several factors: the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution, protections under state constitutions, a patchwork of state laws, existing court decisions protecting transgender youth, and ongoing litigation. Furthermore, actions by Congress may ultimately change the landscape of Title IX and supplement or undermine steps taken by the president in this executive order. Nonetheless, the Trump administration will likely continue to exert direct pressure on education institutions and professional sports associations through various avenues while the outcome for transgender girls and women is ultimately determined.